Stress-responsive composites

ABSTRACT

Composite material can include a matrix material, a fiber dispersed in the matrix material, and an ultraviolet (UV)-light sensitive mechanophore grafted to a surface of the fiber. A method for making a fiber-reinforced polymer composite can include contacting a fiber in a first solution, rinsing and then drying intermediate fiber, contacting dried fiber in a third solution, rinsing, and then drying the rinsed fiber thereby generating functionalized fiber that is sensitive to ultraviolet light. The functionalized fiber can be combined with a polymer matrix material, cured, and irradiated, thereby generating a fiber-reinforced polymer composite.

CROSS-REFERENCE

The present application claims priority to U.S. provisional patentapplication No. 62/660,796, filed on Apr. 20, 2018, the disclosure ofwhich is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH

Aspects of this disclosure were made with government support under grantnumber W911NF-17-P-0064, awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense. Thegovernment has certain rights in the disclosure.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional force responsive molecular units used in composites involveparticulate probes embedded into a matrix or thermoplastic, orchemically bonding into a matrix or thermoplastic directly. Thesemethods have been shown to observe damage occurring to the matrixitself, but not any damage occurring to the inorganic fiber or othermaterials incorporated into the composite.

SUMMARY

In one aspect, disclosed herein are stress-responsive inorganic material(such as glass fibers, carbon blacks, carbon nanotubes, etc.) reinforcedcomposites, which are developed via functionalization of the inorganicmaterials with mechanphore functional groups. Because of theforce-responsive moieties at the surface of the inorganicmaterial-matrix interface, the disclosed systems can be capable ofdetecting delamination occurring within the composites.

In another aspect, disclosed herein is the functionalization of glassfibers, for example. Similar methods may be modified and applied toother inorganic reinforcement materials.

In yet another aspect, disclosed herein is a stress responsive inorganicmaterial reinforced composite capable of detecting delamination effects.The inorganic materials are functionalized at the surface with afluorescent force-responsive moiety.

In yet another aspect, a novel self-sensing glass fiber is synthesizedby grafting cinnamoyl group directly onto the surface of the glass fiber(also called functionalized glass fiber).

In yet another aspect, an improved sensitivity of mechanophoreactivation in the functionalized glass fiber under quasi-static loadingis exhibited.

In yet another aspect, the mechanical and thermal property effects ofgrafting mechanophore onto glass fiber surface is characterized.

In yet another aspect, morphology of the functionalized glass fiberreinforced polymer (GFRP) composite specimens with an induceddelamination is analyzed.

In yet another aspect, early damage detection capability in GFRPspecimens under quasi-static loading condition is demonstrated. Anapproximately linear trend between intensity and strain was observed inconjunction with a sharp increase in intensity due to microcrackformation in the matrix prior to yield.

In yet another aspect, fatigue damage detection in GFRP specimens isdemonstrated; optical images show an increase in intensity with increasein fatigue cycle.

In yet another aspect, the use of Di-AC for early damage detection incarbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite specimens underquasi-static loading is demonstrated.

In yet another aspect, interlaminar damage detection capability inGFRP/CFRP composite samples under quasi-static loading is investigated;concentrated activation of mechanophores was observed around theinterlaminar damage.

Other aspects of the disclosure will become apparent by consideration ofthe detailed description and accompanying drawings. There is no specificrequirement that a material, technique or method include all of thedetails characterized herein, in order to obtain some benefit accordingto the present disclosure. Thus, the specific examples characterized aremeant to be exemplary applications of the techniques described, andalternatives are possible.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows a schematic of a mechanophore embedded thermoset matrix ona glass fiber surface.

FIG. 2 shows a two-step process for functionalization, i.e., covalentlygrafting mechanophores to the surface of a glass fiber.

FIG. 3 shows a setup for mechanical loading tests using aservo-hydraulic load frame.

FIG. 4 shows induced delamination of a 3-Ply GFRP sample for testingoptical response of mechanophore to in situ damage.

FIG. 5A-FIG. 5C show fluorescent images for (a) fibers with no coatingand (b) functionalized fibers with mechanophore. Unaltered images wereprocessed in ImageJ to produce integrated density information (c).

FIG. 6A-FIG. 6D show SEM images for (a) an overview of an untreatedepoxy GFRP composite sample with areas of delamination highlighted, (b)an enlarged image of delamination in the untreated epoxy GFRP compositespecimen, (c) an overview of a grafted GFRP composite specimen withareas of delamination highlighted, and (d) an enlarged image ofdelamination in the grafted GFRP composite specimen.

FIG. 7A-FIG. 7B show (a) stress-strain curve and intensity data for asample made with functionalized glass fibers, and (b) stress-straincurve and intensity data for an untreated epoxy GFRP composite specimen.

FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B show stress-strain curve and intensity data for twoseparate trials of composites made with functionalized glass fibers inwhich the coating thickness was uncontrolled.

FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B show stress-strain curve versus fluorescentintensity data for two separate samples of a notched three-plymechanophore functionalized glass fiber reinforced polymer compositespecimen.

FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B show stress-strain curve versus fluorescentintensity data for two separate samples of an un-notched three-plymechanophore functionalized glass fiber reinforced polymer compositespecimen.

FIG. 11A shows an in situ damage detection experimental setup, and FIG.11B shows an UV camera mount made by a 3D printer.

FIG. 12A shows stress-strain curve vs. fluorescence intensity data of aDi-AC embedded multiple-ply GFRP sample, and FIG. 12B shows a mechanicalproperty and intensity comparison between Di-AC embedded single-ply GFRPand Di-AC embedded multiple-ply GFRP.

FIG. 13A-FIG. 13F show images of a Di-AC embedded three-ply GFRPcomposite sample taken with an UV camera.

FIG. 14 shows experimental fluorescence intensity vs. fatigue loadingdata.

FIG. 15A-FIG. 15J show images of a Di-AC embedded GFRP specimen takenwith an UV camera.

FIG. 16 shows an example MTS load frame with a specimen (left), avisible image (middle), and a reflected UV image of the specimen (right)shown.

FIG. 17A shows stress-strain curve vs. fluorescence intensity data of aDi-AC embedded three-ply GFRP sample with induced delamination, and FIG.17B shows an intensity increment comparison between Di-AC embedded GFRPand a control sample (untreated epoxy).

FIG. 18A-FIG. 18H show UV images of a Di-AC embedded three-ply GFRPcomposite specimen with delamination.

FIG. 19 shows stress-strain curve vs. fluorescence intensity data of aDi-AC embedded three-ply CFRP composite specimen.

FIG. 20A-FIG. 20F show UV images of a Di-AC embedded three-ply CFRPcomposite specimen.

FIG. 21 shows experimental stress-strain curve vs. fluorescenceintensity data of a Di-AC embedded three-ply CFRP composites withinduced delamination.

FIG. 22A-FIG. 22F show UV images of Di-AC embedded three-ply CFRPcomposites with delamination.

FIG. 23 shows experimental intensity increment comparison between Di-ACembedded GFRP and Di-AC embedded CFRP.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Materials and methods disclosed and contemplated herein are directed toobserving damage response with respect to inorganic material-matrixinterfaces. Certain materials and methods disclosed and contemplatedherein are particularly suited for observing delamination with respectto inorganic material-matrix interfaces. Systems disclosed andcontemplated herein can also provide a capability of detecting damagealong the surface of an inorganic material in composites via a chemicalprobe. In some implementations, a load frame modified with a UV lamp andUV camera can be used to observe damage real-time. In contrast, mosttechniques currently used to examine delamination, such as x-ray,analyze delamination occurring after the damage has already happened andrequire much more complex equipment to analyze the signal.

I. Example Composite Materials

Example composite materials disclosed and contemplated herein includematrix material, one or more fibers dispersed in the matrix material,and an ultraviolet (UV)-light sensitive mechanophore grafted to asurface of the fiber.

FIG. 1 shows a schematic illustration of an example composite material.The example composite material includes a mechanophore-embeddedthermoset matrix on a fiber surface. UV-light sensitive mechanophoresare indicated, schematically, as M. Example fibers can include glassfibers and carbon fibers. After functionalization treatment, the fibersshow an increase in fluorescence. Functionalization of fibers can alsopotentially resist delamination. Mechanophores dimerize at the surfaceof fibers; delamination or stress concentration at the fiber surfacecauses activation.

In some instances, example matrix material includes a thermoset polymer.In some instances, example matrix material includes an epoxy resin and ahardener. Example fibers that can be used in exemplary compositematerials include glass fibers and carbon fibers.

Example UV-light sensitive mechanophores with self-sensing capabilitywere developed and demonstrate effectiveness of the stress-sensitivepolymeric system in detecting early damage in fiber reinforced polymercomposites, such as glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) composites andcarbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites. In some instances,UV-light sensitive mechanophores include a silane group. In someinstances, UV-light sensitive mechanophores are derived from a reactionincluding 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane. In some instances, UV-lightsensitive mechanophores include dimeric anthracene (Di-AC). In someinstances, UV-light sensitive mechanophores are capable of a fluorescentresponse when the composite material has interlaminar damage. Typically,UV-light sensitive mechanophores are directly grafted to the surface ofthe fiber through attachment of a pendant amine group to the surface ofthe fiber. Typically, UV-light sensitive mechanophores are not embeddedin the matrix material.

FIGS. 2A-2C show an exemplary two-step process for functionalization.The exemplary process includes covalently grafting mechanophores to thesurface of a glass fiber. The process includes creation of pendant aminegroups via (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES) and reaction ofpendant amine groups with cinnamoyl chloride.

Different types of mechanophores have been reported for capturingmolecular-scale damage in thermoplastic and thermoset polymers. Amongthese mechanophores, spiropyran-based mechanophore has receivedsignificant attention due to its visibility to the naked eye upon theinitiation of molecular-scale damage under mechanical loading. Theexternal force transforms the colorless spiropyran into the coloredmerocyanine (red). However, the ability of spiropyran-based mechanophorefor early damage detection is limited because it requires large strainfor activation. Color change is only observed after yield during tensileloading test of spiropyran embedded polymers. This is due to the uniqueactivation mechanism of spiropyran: the spiropyran can be activated whenonly a specific C—O bond breaks. Therefore, in order to effectivelytransfer external macroscopic force to this spiropyran, polymer chains(thermoplastic) which the spiropyran can be linked to are necessary.Consequently, this necessitates a large strain for the spiropyranactivation; the slack and entangled thermoplastic polymer chain must bestretched first before the external force transfer to the spiropyranwhen the external tensile loading is applied. Additionally, it isnoteworthy that host materials for the spiropyran was thermoplasticwhich has a relatively low melting point and low stiffness compared tothermoset. Given that many desirable applications are associated withextreme conditions such as high temperature and high loading,mechanophores which can be mixed/synthesized with thermoset is verydesirable. In the current state of the art, in situ damage detection incomposites is challenging.

Previously, incorporation of cyclobutane-based mechanophores embedded asparticles in a GFRP composite specimen was investigated by theinventors. It was later proposed that rather than embedding sensors intothe matrix, it would be beneficial to directly graft the cyclobutanechemical sensor directly onto the surface of the fiber to concentratethe type of signal observed. Therefore, any signal detected by thechemical sensor would be directly proportional to the force applied atthe fiber-matrix interface, and any early indicators of delaminationwould be observable as fluorescent response.

To accomplish this, as disclosed herein, the cinnamoyl group can beattached by an acid chloride to an amine group of a pendant amine groupvia a readily-occurring surface reaction. These pendant amine groups canbe attached to the surface of a glass fiber via traditional coatingmethods using (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES), for example.

Dimeric anthracene (Di-AC)-based mechanophore was synthesized.Di-AC-based mechanophore not only can be mixed with thermoset polymersbut also has superior force sensitivity and fluorescence intensity onactivation. The activated Di-ACs emits ultraviolet (UV) fluorescence,and the color change can be observed using fluorescence microscopy.Displacement-controlled compression tests on a set of polymer coupons(3×4×8 mm³ cubic), conducted at different strain rates, showed increasein intensity prior to yield; these results exhibit the ability of usingDi-ACs for early damage detection in thermoset polymers.

II. Example Methods

Example methods for making fiber-reinforced polymer composites caninclude various operations. In an example embodiment, a method includesfirst contacting a fiber in a first solution. As a result, anintermediate fiber is generated that includes a monolayer on at least aportion of an outer surface of the fiber. In some instances, the firstsolution includes 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane (APTES). The firstsolution can also include toluene.

Next, the intermediate fiber is rinsed in a second solution, after whichthe rinsed intermediate fiber is dried. In some instances, the secondsolution can include ethanol. Then the dried intermediate fiber iscontacted in a third solution, thereby generating a second intermediatefiber. The third solution can include acetonitrile and cinnamoylchloride.

Next, the second intermediate fiber is rinsed in a fourth solution. Insome instances, the fourth solution can include ethanol. Then the rinsedsecond intermediate fiber is dried, generating a functionalized fiberthat is sensitive to ultraviolet light. Next, the functionalized fiberis combined with a polymer matrix material and cured, generating a curedcomposite material. Then, the cured composite material is irradiatedwith a light source, generating the fiber-reinforced composite. In someinstances, the light source is configured to emit ultraviolet light.

The example method can be repeated to combine two or more layers offiber-reinforced polymer composite.

In an example implementation, fibers were prepared by first cleaningglass fibers with a piranha solution to ensure no contaminants orcoatings were present on the surface of the glass fiber. Next, a 10 mMsolution of APTES in toluene was prepared, and the cleaned glass fiberswere submerged for 4 hours at room temperature. After coating withAPTES, fibers were removed, washed with toluene and ethanol, and allowedto dry under a nitrogen stream. Next, a mixture of 200 mg cinnamoylchloride, 1 mL trimethylamine, and 200 mL acetonitrile was prepared. TheAPTES coated fibers were submerged in this mixture for at least 24hours, washed with acetonitrile and ethanol, and allowed to dry under anitrogen stream. To prepare the composite, epoxy resin FS-A23 andhardener FS-B412 were mixed at a ratio of 100:27, respectively. Beforecuring, the epoxy was spread over the surface of the functionalizedglass fibers. When spreading, pressure was applied by hand to ensurethere were no gaps between the fibers. Next, the uncured GFRC was placedin a hydraulic press to apply pressure and allowed to cure for severaldays at room temperature. After curing, the functionalized GFRC wasplaced under a UV lamp for at least 24 hours to ensure dimerization ofcinnamoyl groups.

Successful incorporation of cinnamoyl mechanophore by grafting ontosurface of a glass fiber to investigate delamination effects has beendemonstrated as described in this document. These mechanophores showedresponse during failure with single-ply systems; the response wassignificantly more sensitive with three-ply systems, occurring as earlyas 0.5% tensile strain.

III. Example Systems

An example system for detecting delamination of a fiber-reinforcedpolymer composite can include various components. In one exampleembodiment, a system includes a computing unit, an ultraviolet (UV)light source, and an ultraviolet (UV) camera in communication with thecomputing unit. The computing unit can include a processor andnon-transitory memory. The non-transitory memory can store instructionsthat, when executed by the processor, cause the computing unit toperform various actions. The computing unit can be configured to receivean image from the UV camera, determine whether an intensity in the imageexceeds a predetermined threshold, and when the intensity exceeds thepredetermined threshold, determine that delamination of thefiber-reinforced polymer composite has occurred.

In some embodiments, the UV camera can include a bandpass filterconfigured to selectively allow 500 nm light to pass to the UV camera.In some instances, the predetermined threshold is a percent increase inintensity of light reflected from a surface of the fiber-reinforcedpolymer composite.

FIG. 3 shows an example system for mechanical loading tests using aservo-hydraulic load frame. An UV camera captures UV excitedfluorescence from activated mechanophores. This allows for real-timemonitoring of mechanophore embedded GFRP and CFRP composites, forexample.

In an example implementation, In situ early damage detection inGFRP/CFRP (single/multiple-ply) specimens was demonstrated using anexample experimental set up capable of real time detection of UV excitedfluorescence from activated mechanophore. FIG. 4A-FIG. 4C show induceddelamination of a 3-Ply GFRP sample for testing optical response ofmechanophore to in situ damage.

Results showed early damage detection in GFRP composite specimens, priorto yield, under both quasi-static and fatigue loading. The intensityincreased with increase in loading. Early damage detection was alsoobserved in CFRP specimens under quasi-static loading. In situinterlaminar damage detection capability of mechanophore in GFRP/CFRPwas also investigated. Significant mechanophore activation around aninduced delamination was observed under quasi-static loading.

IV. Experimental Examples

In order to explore the use of Di-AC based mechanophore as real-timedamage detection sensor in composites, several key challenges had to beaddressed. These included: (i) mechanophore activation and damagesensitivity across the length scales (polymer matrix, fiber,interphase); (ii) stress relaxation phenomenon associated withdisplacement-controlled tensile tests which can affect mechanophoreactivation; (iii) nonlinear behavior around yield strain due to materialheterogeneity.

To investigate these issues, an integrated test setup, capable ofcapturing a specific range of UV fluorescence (only fluorescence fromactivated Di-AC) during the mechanical loading tests was developed. Theoptical response of the mechanophore embedded composite specimens wasstudied under both quasi-static and fatigue loading conditions and theresults show early damage detection capabilities in healthy specimens.Tests were also conducted to further investigate the feasibility of thisconcept for detection of in situ damage such as delamination in thespecimens under loading.

A. Example Fabrication Processes and Characterization of FunctionalizedGFRP

A silane-based functionalization was proposed via grafting of the forceresponsive fluorescent molecules onto the surface of a glass fiberweave. Cinnamoyl grafted glass fibers were prepared by first cleaningglass fibers for 1 hour in a Piranha solution. After cleaning, rinsingwith ethanol, and drying under a stream of nitrogen, the clean fiberswere submerged in a toluene and (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (APTES)solution for 4 hours. Depending on the desired thickness of the coating,both time submerged and the concentration of APTES could be altered. Formost experiments, a monolayer of APTES on the surface of the glassfibers was targeted.

After rinsing the fibers with ethanol and drying under nitrogen oncemore, the fibers were submerged in a final solution of acetonitrile andcinnamoyl chloride for a minimum of 24 hours. The resulting fibers werethen removed and once again rinsed with ethanol and dried undernitrogen.

These functionalized glass fibers were then examined under a fluorescentmicroscope to observe any fluorescence changes between the untreatedfiber and the functionalized fibers. Ten images were taken across thefiber surface to get an average fluorescent intensity. FIG. 5A shows asample image of the untreated (“neat”) fiber, and FIG. 5B shows a sampleimage of functionalized fibers. Due to the low intensity values of theimages, brightness has been increased by 75% for each image for bettervisual contrast between the two samples. FIG. 5C shows a plot of averageintegrated density along with standard deviation among the ten images.Grafted fibers show a significant increase in intensity from untreatedfibers.

GFRP composite specimens were prepared using glass fibers functionalizedwith cinnamoyl mechanophores and a standard epoxy resin and hardener asthe matrix. Due to uncertainties of the effect of high temperature onthe stability of the mechanophore functionalized glass fibers, thecomposites were cured while under loading with a simple hydraulic pressat room temperature for 2 days. After the matrix was fully cured,samples were irradiated with 302 nm light for several days to ensurethat cinnamoyl groups at the surface of the fibers could dimerize. OnceUV irradiated on both sides of the composite, the samples were cut intostrips and a notch was made to accelerate failure testing. Details ofthe fluorescent response results are disclosed below.

With regard to characterization of specimens, single-plycinnamoyl-grafted GFRP composite samples which had undergone tensileloading to fatigue were examined via scanning electron microscope (SEM)imaging to observe potential effects of functionalization ondelamination within the GFRP composite specimen. The damaged sections ofthe composite were cut off and imaged using SEM, as seen in FIG. 6A—FIG.6D. FIG. 6A is an overview of untreated epoxy GFRP composite sample withareas of delamination highlighted. FIG. 6B is an enlarged image ofdelamination in neat epoxy GFRP composite specimen. FIG. 6C is anoverview of grafted GFRP composite specimen with areas of delaminationhighlighted. FIG. 6D is an enlarged image of delamination in graftedGFRP composite specimen.

Due to the method of functionalizing the surface of the glass fibers, itis hypothesized that unreacted amine groups on the surface of the fiberscan bond to the epoxy matrix covalently, helping to prevent potentialdelamination. While examining SEM images is not necessarilyquantitative, it may give a visual representation of the damageoccurring within each sample. From FIGS. 6A-6D, it is apparent that theuntreated epoxy GFRP composite specimens do in fact display moredelamination than their grafted counterparts for the specific samplesexamined.

B. Optical Response of Interlaminar Damage in Functionalized GFRP

Single-ply GFRP samples containing fibers coated with cinnamoylmonolayer were first tested in order to examine the potential responsethat could be observed via an example experimental system. FIG. 7A showsa stress-strain curve overlaid with intensity information gathered via aUV camera for a sample made with functionalized glass fibers. FIG. 7Bshows a stress-strain curve overlaid with intensity information gatheredvia a UV camera for a sample made with untreated epoxy GFRP compositespecimen.

From FIG. 7A, it can be seen that for a monolayer system, signalresponse is observed as early as 1.5% strain, just as failure initiates.Additionally, this response behaves differently from untreated epoxyGFRP composite specimens with non-functionalized glass fibers (FIG. 7B).Both untreated and functionalized samples show a sharp decrease inintensity after complete failure due to splitting in the sample andincreased void space—areas of image not containing fiber surface due tofailure and stretching—in the image. However, functionalized GFRPcomposite samples show a sharp increase in signal intensity before thisoccurs, which may be attributable to signal response from the activatedcinnamoyl groups.

In an attempt to improve the signal intensity of the composites madewith functionalized glass fiber composites, samples were made in whichthe coating thickness was not controlled to allow for more reactivesites at the surface of the fibers. Samples were submerged in a solutionwith a higher concentration of (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane for alonger period of time (24 hours, as opposed a monolayer time of 4hours), such that the fiber surface is saturated with the coating. Theseconditions yield a much thicker coating on the fiber surface, but thethickness is difficult to control and therefore some unevenness isexpected. While these glass fibers still produced a similar response tothe monolayer fibers, the intensity of the response decreased slightly.It is hypothesized that while it indeed may have a thicker coating ofreactive sites, these sites were likely not as exposed due to crowdingat the fiber surface, limiting the surface reaction to attach cinnamoylgroups.

FIG. 8A and FIG. 8B show the responses gathered for two separate samplesof the uncontrolled coating of functionalized glass fibers within a GFRPcomposite sample. It can be seen in one sample that it lacks thecharacteristic “drop” in intensity after failure. This may be due to thefact that most of the crack propagated out of the observed region,causing most of the sample to remain in view without increasing voidspace. However, the stress response from the cinnamoyl groups was stillcaptured.

While detection capability from the previous results was proven to workfor single-ply systems, single-ply systems are not generally a realisticrepresentation for composite thickness. Therefore, the next step was toadd additional layers in attempt to maintain the sensitivity whileimproving mechanical strength. To ensure sensing capabilities aremaintained for higher-ply systems, the potential effects of increasingthe number of layers was examined.

The detection capability of mechanophores in a grafted fiber system maybe limited by the amount of dimerized mechanophore at the surface of thefibers. If too few mechanophore units are dimerized at a given area,detection in that area is not achievable. This can be overcome by eitherlimiting the thickness of the sample so that UV-curing can penetrate theentire thickness of the sample or UV-curing each functionalized layerseparately before incorporating them into a multi-ply laminate. Becausethe tested samples were three-ply (approximately 0.65 mm) lay-up, thiseffect was not dominant and UV-irradiating after the laminate is fullycured was feasible.

Tests were conducted using both notched and un-notched three-ply GFRPcomposite specimens. The mechanophore activation was characterized usingthe MTS servo-hydraulic load frame integrated with a UV lamp/camera. Aquasi-static loading test was performed and the desired wavelength range(500 nm) was achieved using a band pass filter. FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B showthe results of the notched samples, while FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B show theresults of the un-notched samples. The samples depicted in FIG. 9A—FIG.9B and FIG. 10A-FIG. 10B received the same treatment, except for onebeing notched and one being un-notched.

For both notched and un-notched samples, there is a noticeable increasein fluorescence intensity before failure. This behavior was not presentin single-ply grafted mechanophore GFRP composite specimens, which onlyshowed an intensity spike slightly before failure. This could beattributed to the higher concentration of mechanophore in the three-plysystems, which resulted in an overall increase in total fluorescencecaptured by the UV-camera. Additionally, the intensity trend observed inthese samples follows an exponential behavior, as opposed to the linearincrease seen in Di-AC embedded systems. It is speculated that stressconcentrations at the matrix-fiber interface contributes to thenonlinear behavior.

C. In Situ Damage Precursor Detection in Fiber Reinforced Composites

1. Synthesis and System Configuration

Under an UV lamp of 302 nm wavelength, 9-anthracene carboxylic acid (AC)was photodimerized in solution. After the photodimerization, the whitedimerized 9-anthracene carboxylic acid (Di-AC) powder particles wereobtained and mixed with epoxy resin and hardener (DGEBF and DETA, weightratio 100:27, 5 wt % Di-AC) for polymer matrix composites fabrication.Di-AC embedded single/multiple-ply GFRP/CFRP composite specimens werefabricated with this mixture. The laminate was cut into small specimensfor mechanical loading tests. A small notch (about 1 mm) was generatedat the middle of the left edge of the specimens, which facilitatedmonitoring of the relationship between damage evolution and mechanophoreactivation.

In situ mechanophore activation under mechanical loading was capturedthrough the new experimental set up in real time. The system comprisesan UV lamp, camera, and a load frame (e.g., MTSservo-hydraulic/TestResource 800 L electronic universal test frame). TheUV lamp emits a wavelength of 365 nm which excites activated Di-AC. TheUV camera captures UV excited fluorescence emitted from the activatedDi-AC using an appropriate bandpass filter. This filter helps reduce theexternal noise and select only fluorescence emission from activatedmechanophores during mechanical loading tests. FIG. 11A shows theexperimental set up; FIG. 11B shows a 3-D printed mount used to hold thecamera, lens, and filter in place. A custom MATLAB program was developedto plot the intensity of the composite specimen by measuring thebrightness of each pixel of the UV camera. Quasi-static loading andfatigue tests were performed, and the optical responses wereinvestigated. The effect of fiber type (glass/carbon), number of plies,and damage (notch/interlaminar damage) on mechanophore activation wasinvestigated.

2. Quasi-Static Loading Tests

Quasi-static loading tests were performed on mechanophore embedded GFRPcomposite specimens. To fabricate the samples, 5 wt % of Di-AC and threeglass fiber laminae were used. The tensile load tests were performedunder quasi-static conditions with 0.0032 mm/sec strain rate at roomtemperature. The UV camera was able to record the crack initiation,growth, and the associated fluorescence in real time, illustrating thepotential of mechanophores for early damage detection. A linearrelationship between intensity and strain was also observed from 0.7% toyield strain as shown in FIG. 12A. FIG. 12B shows mechanical propertyand intensity comparison between Di-AC embedded single-ply GFRP andDi-AC embedded multiple-ply GFRP. FIG. 13A-FIG. 13F presents opticalimages of the GFRP composite specimen at various loading stages. FIG.13A corresponds to the beginning of the loading; hence, thecorresponding optical image is considered a baseline fluorescence image.Significant difference in intensity between the baseline image and theimages at higher loading can be seen in FIG. 15B-FIG. 15F.

At 1% strain, an area with higher intensity of mechanophore fluorescencewas observed near the notch as shown in FIG. 13B. Noticeable stripedpatterns with high intensity were observed as shown in FIG. 13C. FIG.13D shows a significant increase in intensity over a large area near thenotch and additional mechanophore activations are observed in regionsfurther away from the notch. These high intensity areas grew into onelarger area as strain increased (FIG. 13E). Complete failure of thesample occurred at 2.45% strain (FIG. 13F). A large amount ofmechanophore was activated during this process, which led to thesignificant increase in intensity (see FIG. 12A).

A comparative study conducted between the three- and single-ply glassfiber specimens shows that, in general, the intensity and intensityranges were much greater in the case of the multiple-ply specimens asshown in FIG. 12B. This may be because of the mechanophore activationoccurring within the laminate could be captured by the UV camera due tothe translucency of glass fiber. Both samples showed a linearlyincreasing trend between intensity and strain. The multiple-ply samplehad a higher yield strength, but it failed at a lower strain than thatof single-ply GFRP due to increased brittleness. These results furthershow the feasibility of mechanophore for self-sensing and early damagedetection in GFRP composite samples. In particular, the significantlyimproved fluorescence in the multiple-ply case indicates potential forstructural scale applications.

3. Fatigue Tests

Fatigue loading tests were conducted on the Di-AC embedded single-plyGFRP specimens to investigate the capability of early fatigue damageinitiation and subsequent propagation behavior. The epoxy-mechanophoremixture was prepared with 5 wt % mechanophore for a single glass fiberply (100×18.5×0.3 mm³). The specimens were mounted on the load frame andramped to 3% strain, following which they were cycled between 0.6% to 3%strain at 20 Hz until complete failure. Multiple tests were conducted,and results are presented for a representative test case. The UV camerawas able to record the crack initiation, growth, and the associatedfluorescence in real time, illustrating the potential of mechanophoresfor the detection of fatigue damage precursor. The load was alsorecorded in the load frame. The results show increase in fluorescenceintensity with fatigue cycle as shown in FIG. 14.

FIG. 15A-FIG. 15J show optical images of the GFRP sample taken atvarious stages of the fatigue test. FIG. 15A shows the sample at thebeginning of the fatigue test when ramp is completed; no crackinitiation is observed. After the first 11,000 fatigue cycles, thelowest intensity of fluorescence was measured in FIG. 15B; this isreferred to as the baseline fluorescence image here. This decrease inintensity could be attributed to partial mechanophore activation duringthe ramp stage; causing these activated mechanophores to dimerize (heal)by the UV lamp. Although the UV lamp was used to excite mechanophores,the UV source also dimerizes the mechanophores since the spectrum ofwavelength of the UV lamp follows a Gaussian distribution which mayinclude spectrum of UV light suitable for dimerization (healing). InFIG. 15C, a noticeable intensity increment indicating significantactivation of mechanophores in the matrix region is observed. However,the trend of the averaged load (black dotted line in FIG. 14) showsnegligible decrease as the fatigue test progresses; therefore, it can behypothesized that during most part of the fatigue tests the damage isconfined to the polymer matrix. FIG. 15E and FIG. 15F show significantincrease in intensity in the region marked with a red dotted line.

The optical images show a possible crack propagation path. There is asignificant change in slope of average load between 0-65,000 cycles(black dotted line) and 65,000-90,000 cycles (black dash-dotted line) inFIG. 14; this transition can be attributed to crack initiation. Siteswith through-thickness microcracks can be observed in the form ofregions with very low intensity surrounded by high intensity in FIG.15G. Crack propagation activated more mechanophores ahead of thecrack-tip indicating severe plastic deformation in the crack-tip plasticzone, as shown in FIG. 15H. With subsequent loading cycles, the samplefails, with the cracks visualized by the intensity of fluorescence ofactivated mechanophores in real time (FIG. 15I and FIG. 15J). Theobserved phenomena were seen to be consistent under a repeatabilitystudy showing the potential of mechanophore as a fatigue damageprecursor sensor.

4. Quasi-Static Loading Tests of Delaminated Samples

The optical response of multiple-ply laminates with delamination wascharacterized to study the effects of interlaminar damage. Three-plyglass fiber composite specimens with 5 wt % Di-AC (embedded in thepolymer matrix) were fabricated with delamination introduced byinserting a single layer of Teflon near the left edge of the specimen(FIG. 16). A near linear trend between intensity and strain was observedbetween 0.34% to 2.5% strain as shown in FIG. 17A. FIG. 18A-FIG. 18Hpresent optical images of the GFRP composite specimens taken at variousloading stages. FIG. 18A shows the sample at the beginning of the testand the lowest intensity of fluorescence was measured at 0.34% strain(FIG. 18B); this is referred to as the baseline fluorescence image. Thisdecrease in intensity could be attributed to partial mechanophoreactivation due to the notch, causing these activated mechanophores todimerize (heal) by the UV lamp. Significant difference in intensitybetween the baseline image and the images obtained at higher loading canbe seen in FIG. 18C-FIG. 18H. At 0.83% strain, intensity in the regionof the induced delamination increases significantly as shown in FIG.18C. With increase in loading, noticeable stripes of higher intensitywere observed (FIG. 18D). After 1.78% strain, visible increment inintensity at the edge of the Teflon was observed as shown in FIG. 18E.Specifically, a large intensity increment in the vicinity of thedelamination was identified at around 2.4% strain as shown in FIG. 18Fand FIG. 18G. Complete failure of the sample occurred at 2.55% strain asshown in FIG. 18H. These results illustrate the potential of usingmechanophores not only for early damage detection, but also fordetecting in situ damage in composites.

A comparative study between the untreated epoxy GFRP (control sample)and Di-AC embedded GFRP was performed under the same quasi-statictensile loading to study the effect of mechanophore in GFRP compositespecimen with delamination. From FIG. 17B, it is apparent that the Di-ACembedded specimen has a notable increment in intensity, compared to thecontrol sample. This result further advances a hypothesis that theintensity increase is due to the mechanophore activation within thematrix.

D. Early Damage Detection in Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites

1. Quasi-Static Loading Tests

The effectiveness of mechanophores to detect an early damage state incarbon fiber laminates was investigated. Three-ply carbon fibercomposite specimens with 5 wt % Di-AC were fabricated and tested underquasi-static loading conditions in the same manner of GFRP tests. Thetest was performed on notched specimens and the associated fluorescencewas recorded in real time. A linear trend between intensity and strainwas observed between 0.8% to 2.05% strain as shown in FIG. 19.

FIG. 20A-FIG. 20F show optical images of the CFRP composite specimentaken during various loading stages. FIG. 20A shows the sample at thebeginning of the test and the lowest intensity of fluorescence wasmeasured at around 0.61% strain (FIG. 20B); this is referred to as thebaseline fluorescence image. This decrease in intensity could beattributed to several reasons such as UV absorption into the carbonfiber and manufacturing variation. Additionally, a self-healingeffect—activated mechanophores due to the notch dimerized (healed) by UVlamp—can cause a decrease in signal intensity. Significant difference inintensity between the baseline image and the images obtained at higherloading can be seen in FIG. 20C-FIG. 20F. At 0.82% strain, a slightincrease in intensity around the notch area was observed as shown inFIG. 20D. As loading increased, the damage around the notched areaincreased, resulting in an increased intensity. FIG. 20E shows thatintensity of the field of view increased globally. Complete failure ofthe sample occurred at 2.05% strain as shown in FIG. 20F. Unlike theresults obtained from GFRP samples, microcrack formation which createslocal intensity increments was barely observed from the UV images of theCFRP sample. Only the intensity variation around the notch was visibleto the naked eye. However, the intensity curve in FIG. 19 indicated thatthe intensity measured from the UV camera increased linearly beforeyield. This implies that a UV camera with a high quantum efficiency candetect small amounts of mechanophore activation which are hardlydistinguishable with the naked eye. These results illustrate not onlythe potential of using mechanophore for early damage detection inmultiple-ply CFRP samples, but also the importance of using a UV camerawith a high quantum efficiency.

2. CFRP with Delamination Under Quasi-Static Loading

The optical response of mechanophores in multiple-ply composites withdelamination was characterized to study the effects of in situ damage inCFRP composite specimens. Three-ply carbon fiber composite samples with5 wt % Di-AC (embedded in the polymer matrix) were fabricated withTeflon inserts. An approximately linear trend between intensity andstrain was observed between 0.28% to 1.71% strain as shown in FIG. 21.

FIG. 22A-FIG. 22F show optical images of the GFRP composite specimentaken during various loading stages. FIG. 22A shows the sample at thebeginning of the test and the lowest intensity of fluorescence wasmeasured at 0.28% strain (FIG. 22B); this is referred to as the baselinefluorescence image. This decrease in intensity is also attributed topartial mechanophore activation due to the notch, causing theseactivated mechanophores to be dimerized by the UV lamp. Significantdifference in intensity between the baseline image and those obtained athigher loading can be seen in FIG. 22C-FIG. 22F. At 0.77% strain,intensity in the region of the induced delamination increasedsignificantly as shown in FIG. 22C. Specially the areas designated byred boxes exhibited significant increase in intensity. With increase inloading, global intensity increased and intensity of some local areasnear the edges of the induced delamination and the notch increased aswell (FIG. 22D). At 1.31% strain, there was a significant increase inintensity as shown in FIG. 22E. Complete failure of the sample occurredat 1.71% strain as shown in FIG. 22F. These results indicate that Di-ACmechanophore could be also used to detect in situ interlaminar damage inCFRP composite specimens.

E. Comparison of Fluorescence Response in GFRP and CFRP

A comparative study between Di-AC embedded GFRP and Di-AC embedded CFRPwas conducted to investigate the influence of the fiber material.Rescaled intensity curves are presented in FIG. 23. The slopes of thetwo curves showed similar trends, although the strains where theintensity increment starts are different (FIG. 23). This relatively lessinfluence of the fiber material on the intensity increase may be due tothe fact that mechanophore activation is primarily a matrix drivenphenomenon. The CFRP sample had a lower yield strength due to increasedbrittleness. These results exhibit the feasibility of mechanophore forself-sensing and early damage detection in CFRP composite specimens.

1. A composite material comprising: a matrix material; a fiber dispersedin the matrix material; and an ultraviolet (UV)-light sensitivemechanophore grafted to a surface of the fiber.
 2. The compositematerial according to claim 1, wherein the UV-light sensitivemechanophore includes a cinnamoyl group.
 3. The composite materialaccording to claim 1, wherein the UV-light sensitive mechanophoreincludes a silane group.
 4. The composite material according to claim 1,wherein the UV-light sensitive mechanophore is derived from a reactionincluding 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane.
 5. The composite materialaccording to claim 1, wherein the UV-light sensitive mechanophoreincludes dimeric anthracene (Di-AC).
 6. The composite material accordingto claim 1, wherein the UV-light sensitive mechanophore is capable of afluorescent response when the composite material has interlaminardamage.
 7. The composite material according to claim 1, wherein thefiber is a glass fiber or a carbon fiber.
 8. The composite materialaccording to claim 1, wherein the matrix material includes a thermosetpolymer.
 9. The composite material according to claim 1, wherein thematrix material includes an epoxy resin and a hardener.
 10. Thecomposite material according to claim 1, wherein the UV-light sensitivemechanophore is directly grafted to the surface of the fiber throughattachment of a pendant amine group to the surface of the fiber.
 11. Thecomposite material according to claim 1, wherein the UV-light sensitivemechanophore is not embedded in the matrix material.
 12. A method formaking a fiber-reinforced polymer composite, the method comprising:contacting a fiber in a first solution, thereby generating anintermediate fiber, the intermediate fiber including a monolayer on atleast a portion of an outer surface of the fiber; rising theintermediate fiber in a second solution and then drying the rinsedintermediate fiber, thereby generating dried intermediate fiber;contacting the dried intermediate fiber in a third solution, therebygenerating a second intermediate fiber; rinsing the second intermediatefiber in a fourth solution; drying the rinsed second intermediate fiber,thereby generating functionalized fiber, wherein the functionalizedfiber is sensitive to ultraviolet light; combining the functionalizedfiber with a polymer matrix material; curing the combined functionalizedfiber and polymer matrix material, thereby generating a cured compositematerial; and irradiating the cured composite material with a lightsource, thereby generating the fiber-reinforced polymer composite. 13.The method according to claim 12, wherein the first solution includes3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane (APTES).
 14. The method according to claim13, wherein the third solution includes acetonitrile and cinnamoylchloride.
 15. The method according to claim 14, wherein the firstsolution additionally comprises toluene; wherein the second solutionincludes ethanol; and wherein the fourth solution includes ethanol. 16.The method according to claim 14, wherein the light source is configuredto emit ultraviolet light.
 17. The method according to claim 14, furthercomprising combining at least two layers of fiber-reinforced polymercomposite, thereby generating a multi-ply laminate. 18-20. (canceled)